Handbook on Sexual Violence (98 page)

(2007: 15)

GLM is essentially a strengths-based approach which ‘focuses on promoting individuals’ important personal goals, while reducing and managing their risk for future offending’ (Whitehead
et al
. 2007: 579). In brief:

It takes seriously offenders’ personal preferences and values – that is, the things that matter most to them in the world. It draws upon these primary goods to motivate individuals to live better lives; and ... thera- pists seek to provide offenders with the competencies (internal conditions) and opportunities (external conditions) to implement treatment plans based on these primary goods.

(Whitehead
et al
. 2007: 580)

In brief, GLM works with the offender to reframe approach goals and the means to achieve them positively and legitimately, and assists the offender in reconstructing a new identity that can action personal goals legally (Whitehead
et al
. 2007). For example, a sex offender may pursue relatedness and social/physical intimacy through inappropriate sexual relations with children (Ward and Stewart 2003). GLM will focus on positive and pro-social approach goals to achieve these ‘primary goods’ of intimacy legitimately and emphasise avoidance goals to prevent harm. GLM emphasises engagement and motivation as key processes of change, restorative approaches emphasise social inclusion and reintegration as key mechanisms for the prevention of offending, including sexual offending.

However, GLM has been critiqued on a number of grounds, not least that it is culturally and context specific, developed from work with indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia, and as such lacks transferability to other societies. McAlinden (2005) for example has argued that restorative approaches, including ‘Good Lives’, are more difficult to operate successfully in societies with looser networks and weaker social bonds. Social exclusion remains a significant barrier to living the ‘Good Life’, and offenders find it difficult to form and sustain strong normative bonds (McNeill 2006). Daly (2000) has also outlined the significant difficulties in pursuing restorative justice in ‘unequal and diverse societies’. She also argues that ‘strong stories of repair and goodwill are uncommon’ (2002: 55). Cook (2006), in an extensive empirical study of restorative justice in Australia and America, found that achieving the ideals of restorative justice was ‘more elusive than anticipated’. Indeed ‘dynamics around gender, race and class reinforce social privilege and disadvantage’ (2006: 107).

It has to be combined with a risk management approach but a therapeutic focus on needs may obscure attention to risks, and workers can find these tensions hard to manage (Kemshall 2008). The model also has limited efficacy with psychopaths who display limited empathy and remorse (Whitehead
et al.

2007; Hemphill and Hart 2002). In addition, it is difficult to establish in a multimodal approach the impact achieved by GLM over and above more traditional risk management methods. Finally, comparison of GLM and more traditional risk management strategies is still lacking (see Bonta and Andrews 2003 for a full review).

Despite their roots in restorative justice, reintegrative approaches have tended to focus on offenders and the effective community management of their risk factors, with rather limited attention to the subjective experiences of victims (see Newell 2007 for example on restorative work with violent prisoners; and Wilson
et al
. 2002 on restorative approaches to sex offenders). However, the reintegrative focus does aim to erode the ‘monstrous’ framing of sex offenders and demonstrates that many sex offenders can be safely managed in the community. In this sense it is an important antidote to dominant criminal justice concerns with high-risk sex offenders, ‘dangerous offenders’ and ‘serious harm’.

Conclusion

As argued above, Kelly’s ‘continuum’ (1998, 2002) is an interesting device for ‘testing’ the fitness for purpose of public health and voluntary sector responses to sex offenders. In essence, three questions were posed:

To what extent can such policy alternatives respond to a range of offenders, offence types and victim experiences?

To what extent do they facilitate a refocusing away from ‘the monstrous

Stranger-Danger’ to the sex offender who is daily in our midst?

To what extent do they enable victims (actual and potential) to respond to sex offending in a meaningful and effective way?

To differing degrees public health and voluntary sector responses to sex offenders do capture a range of offenders and offence types, particularly those with an emphasis upon early interventions and preventative strategies. To a lesser extent victim experiences are recognised and validated; survivor experiences for example have been critical in the development of Stop It Now!, and TDI/Leisurewatch recognises that the dividing line between offender and public and between offender and victim can be slim. All have facilitated a refocusing away from ‘the monstrous Stranger-Danger’, although public awareness campaigns and public engagement have been limited with differing grades of success. The specific targeting of groups and the focus on ‘skilling up’ appears to be more successful than broad public awareness campaigning (TDI 2007; Kemshall 2008). Knowing what to look for and how to respond appears to enable actual and potential victims to respond to sex offending in a meaningful and positive way in contrast to public education campaigns which can be resisted or misinterpreted.

However, the quality of evidence on the effectiveness of public health and reintegrative approaches is variable (see McAlinden 2010 for an overview of some current critiques, pp. 142–4). Some studies (e.g. Wilson
et al
. 2007) have

striven to meet the standards of a matched sample, but evaluations tend to be limited by small numbers, difficulties in accurate matching of samples (for example of sex offenders in a Circle and those not) and lack of generalisability. For example, some projects and evaluations are context specific, located in the particular contexts of prisons, domestic violence interventions, or targeted at particular offence types, with limited transferability to other offenders and offence types. Daly (2006) for example has presented empirical evidence of the effectiveness of restorative approaches in the realm of ‘intimate gendered violence’ but recognises that transferability to other forms of violence cannot be assumed. The research base would benefit from larger-scale comparative evaluations, across settings and offence types, and across longer timescales to determine accurate recidivism rates. However, early evaluations indicate that such alternatives are worthy of further initiatives and evaluations.

In addition, all approaches under the broad banner of public health and reintegration have limits and difficulties in their practical deployment. Whilst they potentially have greater benefits to offer than traditional correctional and punitive approaches, constructing direct comparisons of these two approaches remains difficult, not least because public health responses have been co-opted by the dominant punitive paradigm (for example by MAPPA, or through the Child Sex Offender Review). This in itself has served to focus attention on offenders rather than victims, albeit within an overall goal of public safety and protection. The Public Health Approach has, however, rebalanced policy responses to sex offenders by focusing attention on a broad range of sexual offending, demonstrating that sex offenders can be safely managed in the community, and that exclusionary management techniques are self-defeating. PHA also values early and preventative interventions in contrast to the reactive and punitive responses of the criminal justice system. In addition, all the PHA responses value public engagement, with differing degrees of practical success. This in itself has played an important role in collapsing the gulf between communities and sex offenders, and in making the ‘monstrous’ manageable. PHA responses have demonstrated that the public are not necessarily irrational vigilantes, or mere ‘media dupes’, but are capable of rational and reasoned responses to child sexual abuse if appropriately informed. Whilst considerable barriers to engagement still exist, these alternative responses highlight how we might proceed and why we should try.

Acknowledgements

Thanks are extended to Jason Wood and Gill Mackenzie who co-worked on two of the projects cited here. The views expressed in this
chapter are the author’s.

Further reading

For a thorough and readable introduction to restorative justice approaches to work with high-risk sex offenders see McAlinden, A. (2010) ‘Restorative justice and the

reintegration of high risk sex offenders’, in K. Harrison, (ed.)
Managing High Risk Sex Offenders in the Community: Risk Management, treatment and social responsibility.
Cullompton: Willan Publishing. For an introduction to public health approaches to sex offenders see Kemshall, H. (2008)
Understanding the Community Management of High Risk

Offenders
. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill/OUP, pp: 73–8, 94–102. For media framing of sex offending risks see Kitzinger, J. (2004)
Framing Abuse: Media Influence and Public Understanding of Sexual Violence Against Children
. London: Pluto Press.

The initial Home Office
Child Sex Offender Review
(2007) can be found at: http:// webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/2010041
3151441/http:/www.homeoffice.gov. uk/ documents/CSOR/ (accessed 4 March 2011).

Helpful websites are: Stop It Now! http://www.stopit
now.org; The Derwent Initiative at http://www
.tdi.org.uk/; Circles of Support and Accountability at http:// www.circles-uk.org.uk/

References

Alaszewski, A. (2006) ‘Health and risk’, in P. Taylor-Gooby and Jens Zinn (eds)
Risk in Social Science
. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 160-179.

Alder, M.W. (1997) ‘Sexual health; a health of the nation failure’,
British Medical Journal
, 314, pp. 1743–6.

Armstrong, S., Chistyakova, Y., Mackenzie, S. and Malloch, M. (2008)
Circles of Support

& Accountability: Consideration of the feasibility of pilots in Scotland
. The Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice Research. Downloaded from www.sccjr.ac.uk/files/ea609cb 5b161853a9a6edefe64436420.pd
f (accessed 16 February 2010).

Barnett, J. and Breakwell, G.M. (2003) ‘The social amplification of risk and the hazard sequence: the October 1995 oral contraceptive pill scare’,
Health, Risk and Society
, 5: 301–13.

Bates, A., Saunders, R. and Wilson, C. (2007) ‘Doing something about it: A follow-up

study of sex offenders participating in Thames Valley circles of support and accountability’,
British Journal of Community Justice
, 5: 19–42.

BBC (2009) Radio 4,
File on Four
, 7 July. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lgj3h/
File_on_4_07_07_2009/ (accessed 16 February 2010).

Bohner, G., Eyssel, F., Pina, A., Siebler, F. and Tendayi, Viki, G. (2009) ‘Rape myth acceptance: cognitive, affective and behavioural effects of beliefs that blame the victim and exonerate the perpetrator’, in: M. Horvarth and J. Brown (eds)
Rape: Challenging Contemporary Thinking
. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Bonta, J. and Andrews, D.A. (2003) ‘A commentary on Ward and Stewart’s model of

human needs’,
Psychology, Crime and Law
, 9: 215–8.

Boseley, S. (2002) ‘ ‘‘Multi-jabs pose no risk to babies’, say US researchers’,
The Guardian
, Tuesday 8 January, p. 9.

Brown, S. (2005)
Treating Sex Offenders: An Introduction to Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Chartered Institute of Housing Scotland (2005)
Toward a National Accommodation Strategy for Sex Offenders
. A report commissioned by the CIH Scotland from R. Atkinson, J. Flint and S. Blandy. Edinburgh: CIH Scotland.

Collins, S. (2009)
Keeping the Public in Public Protection
. Lucy Faithfull Foundation.

Connelly, C. and Williamson, S. (2000)
A Review of the Research Literature on Serious Violent and Sexual Offenders
. Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Cook, K.J. (2006) ‘Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice conferences’,
Theoretical Criminology
, 10(1): 107–24.

Cornelius, T.L., Sullivan, K.T. and Wyngarden, N. (2009) ‘Participation in prevention programs for dating violence: Beliefs about relationship violence and intention to participate’,
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
, 24(6): 1057–78.

Correctional Service of Canada (2002)
Circles of Support and Accountability: A guide to training potential volunteers, Training manual 2002
. Ottawa.

Cosgrove, Lady (1999)
Reducing the Risk: improving the response to sex offending. Report of the expert panel on sex offending
. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Daly, K. (2000) ‘Restorative justice in diverse and unequal societies’, in: M. Israel, A.J.

Goldsmith and A. Goldsmith (eds)
Criminal Justice in Diverse Communities
. Federation Press.

Daly, K. (2002) ‘Restorative justice: the real story’,
Punishment and Society
, 4(1): 55–79.

Daly, K. (2006) ‘Restorative justice and sexual assault: an archival study of court and conference cases’,
British Journal of Criminology
, 48(4): 557–66.

Denscombe, M. (2001) ‘Uncertain identities: the value of smoking for young adults in

late modernity’,
British Journal of Sociology
, 52: 157–77.

Dowden, C. and Andrews, D.A. (2004) ‘The importance of staff practice in delivering effective correctional practice’,
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
48(2): 203–14.

Eisen, M. and Zellman, G.L. (1986) ‘The role of health belief attitudes, sex education and demographics in predicting adolescents’ sexuality knowledge’,
Health Education Quarterly
, 13: 9–22.

Eldridge, H., Fuller, S., Findlater, D. and Palmer, T. (2006)
Stop It Now! Helpline Report
.

Available at www.sto
pitnow.org (accessed 30 September 2007).

Foubert, J.D. and McEwen, M.K. (1998) ‘An all-male rape prevention peer education program: decreasing fraternity men’s behavioural intent to rape’,
Journal of College Student Development
, 39: 548–56.

Gallagher, B. (2009) ‘Child sexual abuse: informed or in fear?’,
Criminal Justice Matters
, 77 (September): 6–7.

Gilligan, P. and Akhtar, S. (2005) ‘Cultural barriers to the disclosure of child sexual abuse in Asian communities: what women say’,
British Journal of Social Work
, 36(8): 1361–77.

Glanz, K., Rimer, B.K. and Lewis, F.M. (2002)
Health, Behaviour and Health Education.

Theory, Research and Practice
. San Francisco: Wiley and Sons.

Hebenton, B. and Thomas, T. (1996) ‘Tracking sex offenders’,
Howard Journal of Criminal Justice,
35(2): 97–112.

Hemphill, J.F. and Hart, S.D. (2002) ‘Motivating the unmotivated: Psychopathy, treatment, and change’, in: M. McMurran (ed.)
Motivating the Offender to Change: A guide to enhancing engagement in therapy
. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 193– 200.

Home Office (2007)
Child Sex Offender Review
. London: Home Office.

Home Office (2008)
Keeping Our Communities Safe
. London: Home Office.

Hughes, E., Kitzinger, J. and Murdoch, G. (2006) ‘The media and risk’, in P. Taylor- Gooby and J. Zinn (eds)
Risk in Social Science
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnston, L. (2000)
Policing Britain: Risk, Security and Governance
. London: Longman. Kelly, L. (1988)
Surviving Sexual Violence
. London: Polity Press.

Kelly, L. (2002) ‘The continuum of sexual violence’, in K. Plummer (ed.)
Critical Concepts in Sociology
. London: Routledge, pp. 127–39. Reproduced from J. Holmes and M. Maynard (eds) (1987)
Women, Violence and Social Control
. London: Macmillan, pp. 46–60.

Kemshall, H. (2002) ‘Effective practice in probation: an example of ‘‘advanced liberal responsibilisation’’?’,
The Howard Journal
, 41(1): 41–58.

Kemshall, H. (2003)
Understanding Risk in Criminal Justice
. Maidenhead: Open

University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Kemshall, H. (2008)
Understanding the Community Management of High Risk Offenders
.

Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.

Kemshall, H., Mackenzie, G. and Wood, J. (2004)
Stop It Now! UK and Ireland. An Evaluation
. Leicester: De Montfort University.

Kemshall, H. and Wood, J. (2007) ‘Beyond public protection: an examination of community protection and public health approaches to high-risk offenders’,
Criminology and Criminal Justice
, 7(3): 203–22.

Kemshall, H. and Wood, J. (2008) ‘Risk management, accountability and partnerships

in criminal justice’, in B. Stout, J. Yates and B. Williams (eds)
Applied Criminology
. London: Sage Publications.

Kirkwood, S. and Richley, T. (2008) ‘Circles of support and accountability: the case for their use in Scotland to assist in the community reintegration and risk management of sexual offenders’,
SCOLAG Legal Journal
, 372 (October): 236–9.

Kitzinger, J. (1999) ‘The ultimate neighbour from hell? Stranger danger and the media representation of paedophilia’, in B. Franklin (ed.)
Social Policy, the Media and Misrepresentation
. London: Routledge, pp. 207–21.

Kitzinger, J. (2004)
Framing Abuse: Media Influence and Public Understanding of Sexual Violence Against Children
. London: Pluto Press.

Laws, R.D. (1996) ‘Relapse prevention or harm reduction?’,
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment
, 8(3): 243–48.